Posted on 07/04/2012 1:01:35 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Gripen operational cost lowest of all western fighters: Jane’s
The study conducted by IHS Jane's Aerospace and Defense Consulting, compared the operational costs of the Gripen, Lockheed Martin F-16, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-35 aircraft.
The operational cost of the Swedish Saab Gripen aircraft is the lowest among a flightline of modern fighters, confirmed a White Paper submitted by the respected international defense publishing group IHS Jane’s, in response to a study commissioned by Saab.
The paper says that in terms of ‘fuel used, pre-flight preparation and repair, and scheduled airfield-level maintenance together with associated personnel costs’, “The Saab Gripen is the least expensive of the aircraft under study in terms of cost per flight hour (CPFH).”
The study, conducted by Edward Hunt, Senior Consultant, at IHS Jane’s Aerospace and Defense Consulting, compared the operational costs of the Gripen, Lockheed Martin F-16, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-35 aircraft.
“At an estimated $4,700 per hour (2012 USD), the Gripen compares very favorably with the Block 40 / 50 F-16s which are its closest competitor at an estimated $7,000 per hour,” says the report, adding, “The F-35 and twin-engined designs are all significantly more expensive per flight hour owing to their larger size, heavier fuel usage and increased number of airframe and systems parts to be maintained and repaired. IHS Jane’s believes that aircraft unit cost and size is therefore roughly indicative of comparative CPFH.”
In comparison, the figure for the F/A-18 Super Hornet ranged from USD 11000 to USD 24000, depending on degree of operational capability. The figure for the Rafale was USD 16500 per flying hour and number for the Eurofighter Typhoon, derived from British Parliamentary figures and seeming to cover only fuel usage, was USD 8200. But Jane’s estimate of the actual Cost Per Flying Hour for the Eurofighter, keeping in mind supplies and scheduled maintenance raised the figure up to USD 18000.
The cost of operation of the F-35 appears to be in a whole other league. Jane’s cites Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) estimates for the conventional F-35 A, assuming operational service over 30 years with 200 hours per year for each aircraft, to amount to USD 21000 per hour of flight. The paper also sources US Navy projections of the cost of operation of the F-35 B & C variants until the year 2029, which come to USD 31000 per flight hour.
The report says the figures were based on data sourced from the respective operating militaries and governments, disclosed international fighter competition cost figures (Rafale, F-18 E / F, Gripen), manufacturer-stated figures (F-35, Rafale, F-18 E / F, Gripen) and IHS Jane’s estimates for all aircraft.
There are several caveats to this assessment. “Owing to the differing methods of calculating aircraft operating cost per flight hour and the large number of interlinked factors that affect such a calculation, IHS Jane’s believes that any flight hour cost figure can only be regarded as indicative and that there is no single correct answer to such a calculation,” says the report, but adds, “However, we believe that our results are of considerable merit and provide a useful benchmark when considering the costs associated with operating contemporary high performance combat aircraft.”
The report stresses that ‘without access to comprehensive military data over a significant timeframe’ the results ‘can only be regarded as approximate’ and ‘are an average cost across an entire fleet’.
The report says it is most confident about the data and its conclusions on the Gripen, F-16 and the F/A-18 ‘with good primary and secondary source data supported by logical results from our deductive modeling.’
The numbers for the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale are less certain, in comparison, but the report submits that ‘the comparative modeling output appears to confirm IHS Jane’s estimates’ for them.
The report is least sure about the operational cost of the F-35 costs ‘owing to the absence of actual in-service data’. “IHS Jane’s does not feel that the modeled fuel cost figure is representative of likely CPFH costs,” it says.
Besides using primary and secondary sources and their own databases, IHS Jane’s also considered data thrown up by a ‘modelled assessment of relative cost based on fuel usage’. In the absence of a single global standard for calculating cost per flight hour IHS Jane’s arrived upon a list of factors which would determine this cost.
The study took into account, what it called, Basic cost calculations to the exclusion of a set of factors it grouped under the term, Comprehensive cost calculations, to arrive at a figure determined only by the characteristics of individual aircraft rather than complexity of operations, weapons or support elements.
The study ‘determined that the Basic CPFH was the more common value stated and that this was therefore regarded as a more accurate and useful indication of the cost of sortie generation for a particular aircraft’.
The other factors, under the Comprehensive cost calculations, were ‘more usually considered as part of the platform’s capital cost rather than the daily service cost of which the Basic CPFH was felt to be a more useful representation’.
For the purpose of modeling to create a standard or benchmark, the study arrived at the ‘aircrafts’ fuel usage, hence cost, based on a theoretical one hour sortie at max dry thrust’, not ‘necessarily reflective of actual fuel consumption and hence fuel cost of a one hour sortie’.
As is evident, the modeled cost pattern is closest to the derived cost pattern in the case of the Gripen, F-16, Rafale, and Eurofighter. The research and the model digress in the case of the F-35 and the F/A-18.
In the case of the F-35, the study says the different ‘costs arise from the differing power and specific fuel consumptions of the A / C and B models. The B model is the top figure in both cases’. The study says, “The single P&W F-135 engine is relatively fuel efficient for its power, resulting in a lower fuel burn at maximum dry thrust than might be expected.” It adds that, although obviously, ‘accurate CPFH for in-service aircraft does not exist’, ‘the US and Australian forecast costs both suggest it will not offer lower CPFH than current aircraft’, considering ‘the aircraft itself is an extremely sophisticated design carrying a large number of new and unproven onboard systems’.
The report thinks the digression with respect to the Super Hornet is ‘due to the size of the fleet and the experience the US Navy has in operating’ it, compared to the ‘small fleet of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) that has yet to reach Full Operational Capability’. It points out that ‘RAAF CPFH has fallen significantly as familiarity with the aircraft has grown, and is likely to fall further as this continues to improve’.
But the report also says the Super Hornet has ‘relatively high dry thrust ratings while the GE F414 engine is less efficient in specific fuel consumption than the engines of the similar-sized Rafale and EuroFighter aircraft’. And everything else being the same, the F/A-18 E/F ‘engines use more fuel and are hence relatively costly’ compared to the SNECMA or Eurojet engines, even though the US Navy aircraft have a relatively low CPFH.
Both the delta wing shape and the leading canards are serious radar reflectors. There is no way that the Gripen has a low RCS, even in “comparative” terms (except with respect to other delta/canard fighters like the Euro). I need to see your source on this assertion...
The Rafale superior to the Eurofighter? Don’t make me laugh. The best that can be said is that it is a more ‘mature’ airframe that has had more time for problems to be ironed out and its pilots are generally more experienced. In the air-to-air role, the EF as an air platform totally outclasses the Rafale, and this gap will widen more as the EF and its avionics/weapons systems (particularly its radar) mature and its pilots gain more experience.
The advantage of the Rafale is that (for the moment) it is a superior air-to-ground platform and it can land on a carrier. Again, if these are more important considerations than pure air-to-air superiority, then the Rafale might not be an unreasonable choice for some customers, particularly India.
As for the better cost efficiency of the Gripen, you could certainly argue that at less than half the price and with greater fuel efficiency, it is better value for money for most countries that are considering it, but the fact of the matter is that if you want the best a2a platform and you aren’t the United States of America, the Eurofighter is the best that you can get right now if you are willing to pay...
Check the relative sizes of F-16 and F-18 and compare that with Gripen. Gripen is a tiny fighter with reduced signature intakes.
F-15C RCS = 10~15m2 effective detection range is 450 ~ 600 km
F/A-18C RCS = 3 m2 effective detection range 330 ~ 395 km
F-16C RCS = 1.2 m2 effective detection range 260 ~ 310 km
JAS39 RCS = 0.5 m2 effective detection range 210 ~ 250 km
F-35A RCS = 0.0015 m2 effective detection range 50 ~ 60 km
F/A-22 RCS <= 0.0002~0.0005 m2 effective detection range < = 30 ~ 45 km
The JAS39 Gripen will be “seeing” the F-16, F/A-18s and F-15s long before they see the Gripen on their radar.
http://files.newsnetz.ch/upload//1/2/12332.pdf
Rafale beats the EF hands down in every category. Eurofighter “totally outclasses” the Rafale? You make ME laugh every time you use that word “outclasses”. EF "outclasses" nothing. Right now the “gap” is actually in favor of Rafale. The gap MAY shrink if the consortium members get their act together. If the can come to a decision on the radar/avionics and weapon system but not with development costs spiraling and member countries in disagreement and cutting down on the number of their fighters. The EF already lost out in India, Japan, Switzerland and Turkey and got canceled in Greece. While Rafale just won the largest ever contract in India and poised to win in Brazil and UAE. The EF Typhoon's future at the moment looks bleak. As I said it's only a paper tiger right now.
As for India, Rafale would a basic multi role fighter. The future air superiority role will be taken on by the PAK FA .......which will make the EF Typhoon look like ....your favourite .....Gloster Gladiator!
And read about Hungarian airforce shooting down a Typhoon with their Gripen.....
The Gripen occupies a sweet spot at lower end of the Cost to Capability chart. By the time the EF matures into a capable platform there will be quite a few 5th gen stealth fighters programs from Russia, China, India, South Korea, Turkey and Japan occupying the other end of the performance scale. EF will be somewhere in the middle occupying a spot called useless and overpriced. Its only chance of winning a combat will be against old Soviet Migs from third world airforces.
Couldn’t read the PDF unfortunately, however, I doubt it will anything to disprove what I have said, which is that in the air to air role, the EF is superior. It is undeniably faster and more manouevarable and that it has greater potential for further improvement thanks to its larger size and more modern air frame.
Citing isolated examples of Gripens and Rafales shooting down Eurofighters does not prove it is a better plane. As I have said, an inferior plane flown by a skilled pilot in favourable conditions can shoot down a superior plane flown by a less skilled pilot or one who was caught in unfavourable circumstances.
As for the Indian PAK FA, that may well be the case, but as it is under development, it is still an unknown quantity and its advantages/disadvantages remain largely theoretical. It also isn’t scheduled to be introduced until 2019, and given the nature of these things, probably not until a lot later. Right now, the Eurofighter is the best non Raptor aircraft money can by for the air to air role. India might be better off buying the Rafale as a multi-role, carrier based plane, but not if it wants the best air to air platform.
As I say, the Gripen and Rafale might give countries cheaper value or better suited to their specific needs (particularly Rafale’s carrier capability), but saying that they are better air superiority platforms is nonsense.
It might be an exageration to use the ‘Gloster Gladiator’ to ‘BF-109’ analogy, but I don’t think a ‘Hawker Hurricane’ vs ‘BF-109’ comparison would be too far off the mark...
The Gripen, a delta wing with canards, has a lower RCS than an F-18...?
After several additional posts, you admit that the Super Hornet has a smaller RCS than the Gripen.
Seems like we went through a lot of additional verbiage for nothing...
You asked if Gripen had lower RCS then F-18. Yes it has lower RCS then F-18. And it has slightly higher RCS then F/A-18E superhornet. Do you get it know?
Read my post again. The F/A-18C has an RCS that is nearly 6 times larger then the Gripen.
And against this very detailed and well prepared report all you have is your own nonsense about EF being faster and more “manouevarable”(sic).
And granted those are isolated example of EF being shot down in exercises but then again what does EF have to prove anything at all? EF has nothing except lots of empty promises on paper. As I said earlier its just a paper tiger. The point of citing those article is that EF does not rule he skies now, and it is EVEN LESS likely to rule the sky anytime in future.
As for PAK FA, the Russian are only next to the US when it come to aircraft engineering. The Pak Fa may not be an F-22 but it will still be a superlative fighter and will dominate any European fighter by a mile. Its no surprise most European countries still buys American fighters to protect against Russia.
If Gripen and EF are like Gloster Gladiator & BF-109, then PAK FA and EF would be like BF-109 and Sopwith Pup. At least the Sopwith Pup will be able to “see” the BF-109. Not sure the EF pilot would be that lucky.
I haven’t been able to download and read the report, as I have already mentioned. Even if this report does say that it is superior in every way, I take it with a pinch of salt. Pretty much every other source I have ever read has said that whilst the Rafale is arguably a more versatile multi-role aircraft, it cannot touch the EF as an air superiority fighter, both now and with potential future upgrades, and given that, it would take more than one source to convince me otherwise. Do you have any other correlating evidence to support this? I’m not dismissing the possibility out of hand, I’m just extremely sceptical, given what I have read from many other sources over several years...
More over....(and here is the kicker)....the future upgrade proposed for the EF is to turn it into a bomber and give it more ground strike capability. EF’s days as air superiority fighter is numbered.....
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/page3.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/page2.html
And in yet another mock combat the RAF Typhoons were beaten by Pakistani F-16 block52.
EF woe stories never seems to end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.